British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, November 26, 2003

H1126pm-01

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, November 26, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 19, Number 1 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Wednesday, November 26, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 8209 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 8209 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003 (Bill 90) Hon. G.

Plant Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 8209 Military leadership V. Roddick MLAs' response to environmental activists B. Bennett Student spaces in post-secondary institutions D. Hayer Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 8210 Benefits of B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement J. MacPhail Hon. G. Campbell Privatization and viability of B.C.

Rail J. Kwan Hon. G. Campbell B.C. Rail pension fund J. Kwan Hon. J. Reid Occupational safety W. Cobb Hon. G. Bruce CN Rail operation of B.C. Rail services and impact on jobs P. Nettleton Hon. G.

Campbell Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 8212 Alternative Payments to Physicians: A Program in Need of Change, auditor general report No. 4 Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 8212 Timber Licences Settlement Act (Bill 96) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 8213 Timber Licences Settlement Act (Bill 96) Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 8213 British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 89) Hon.

J. Reid P. Nettleton J. MacPhail J. Kwan

Motions on Notice.............................................................................................................. ...................................................... 8219 Amendment to sessional order (Motion 105) Hon. G. Plant J. MacPhail Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 8220 Significant Projects Streamlining Act (Bill 75) (continued) J. Kwan Hon. K.

Falcon Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 8234 Significant Projects Streamlining Act (Bill 75) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 8234 Significant Projects Streamlining Act (Bill 75) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 8234 Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 84) J.

MacPhail Hon. J. Murray Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 8241 Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 84)

8209 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Prayers. [1405] Introductions by Members D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Paul Keenleyside. Paul was one of my key volunteers on my campaign. He has also volunteered in more than 40 mu- nicipal, provincial and federal campaigns. He is also a good friend. Would the House please make him very welcome. R. Sultan: We have as a guest this afternoon a well- known West Vancouver entrepreneur, Peter Kains. Would the House please make him welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2003 Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscella- neous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003. Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 90, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2003.

This bill amends provisions in the following statutes: As- sessment Act; Credit Union Incorporation Act; Election Act; Family Maintenance Enforcement Act; Financial In- stitutions Act; Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act; Land Title Act; Land Title Amendment Act, 1999; Medicare Protection Act; Miscellaneous Regis- trations Act, 1992; Mortgage Brokers Act; Personal Prop- erty Security Act; Real Estate Act; and Strata Property Act. I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of this bill.

In addition to these pro- visional amendments, this bill also provides for minor housekeeping, transitional and consequential amendments to the changes in the acts that I have already identified. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 90 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25B) MILITARY LEADERSHIP V. Roddick: At ten this morning in Ottawa, a very special ceremony took place.

My constituency assistant, Elizabeth Merritt, along with her two brothers, Cecil and Peter, and their respective families donated the Victoria Cross belonging to their late father, Lt-Col. Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt, Q.C., to the Canadian War Museum — the museum having the best means of promoting the virtues of leadership in a free society. Freedom cannot be won nor maintained without leaders. Leadership is putting your country before your party, before yourself. Effective leadership requires a clear vision of the future and a willingness to engage the enemy. It must be inspirational and persistent.

It must be rewarded. Mr. Merritt won the Victoria Cross at Dieppe on August 19, 1942. Born in Vancouver, Cecil Merritt — whose father died at the second battle of Ypres in 1915 and whose mother, Sophie Tupper, was the grand- daughter of Sir Charles Tupper, Father of Confedera- tion — also served as Conservative Member of Parlia- ment for Vancouver Centre immediately following the war.

For those who are interested, his picture is on the wall in the corridor directly behind me. [1410] It is hoped that the Canadian War Museum will not shrink from the role of glorifying leadership and pre- serving the values and the valour of those many great men and women who served our country so that free- dom could survive. There is an inevitability to war as new generations do not always find a peaceful path to progress. Canada must have people who are willing to fight for its future when diplomacy fails. Freedom has to be protected, and Canada's freedom was and is worth fighting for.

Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt, VC, Q.C., was an inspirational leader and a great Canadian. MLAS' RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS B. Bennett: Recently three of my colleagues took some inspired actions, for which I'd like to thank them today. I speak of the three courageous MLAs who recently took on the most righteous of all activists, the green activists. The member for Chilliwack-Kent gave an incisive lecture in downtown Vancouver recently to some eco- activists about B.C. forestry workers and their families and the altogether reasonable proposition of selling B.C. wood to China.

Then, right here in the capital city, the feisty members for North Coast and for North Is- land waded into a sea of extreme environmentalists, proudly waving packages of pure, natural farmed salmon and shocking those present so much that they were uncharacteristically silenced. What do these ac- tions signify? Was it just a clever communications exer- cise, or is there a lesson we can draw from the auda- cious pluckiness displayed by these members? I suggest that two important points were made by the gallant actions of our colleagues.

First, some atten- tion has finally been drawn to the real-life impact of environmental blockades and boycotts on the people of our province. We must not stand by while the working people of British Columbia are sacrificed at the altar of political correctness and eco-dogma.

8210 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 The second lesson learned, I hope, is that despite the very good work of many conservation groups in B.C., many claims by extreme environmental groups must be challenged for their factual basis. Radical envi- ronmental groups needing to raise large amounts of money from the general public — including from wealthy U.S. donors — and needing to acquire the po- litical capital of the general public, motivate a trusting public with gloomy warnings of impending catastro- phes.

Eco-champions painted as heroes in the media have convinced much of the public with a litany of doom and gloom that our natural environment is ever- depreciating and that human interaction with nature is inherently bad. This cynical, anti-human proclivity must be challenged with facts, statistics and science, and I thank the three private members for standing up for working families in B.C. STUDENT SPACES IN POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS D. Hayer: As a former member of the board of gov- ernors of Kwantlen University College, I have a long and abiding interest in post-secondary education.

That is why I was very concerned when earlier this month Maclean's magazine's annual survey of university rank- ings stated that B.C. has the lowest number of univer- sity seats per capita. That is misleading. In fact, this year's ratings were good news for B.C., with three of our biggest universities ranking on the top in their categories nationwide. Where British Columbia really shines is what Mac- lean's fails to ignore. It is that our post-secondary edu- cation system includes outstanding university colleges, colleges and other institutions.

As a member of the Select Standing Committee for Finance and Government Services that travelled around the province this fall, I heard about increasing need for more skilled trades people. I know that our Minister of Advanced Education is committed to pro- viding a top-notch post-secondary education system and will continue to increase access and choices for British Columbia's students — choices that include certificates, diplomas and apprenticeship, for example, not just degrees. Recently I was speaking with Skip Triplett, the president of Kwantlen University College.

I was told that due to the changes implemented by this govern- ment, they are now able to offer more than 10,000 addi- tional seats at Kwantlen University College alone. I firmly believe the opportunities for the post-secondary education system in this province are excellent. As our economy expands and preparations for the Olympics get underway, I know the future for our kids in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead and across B.C. is more bright, as we continue to add even more spaces and create more choices. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' state- ments. [1415] Oral Questions BENEFITS OF B.C.

RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT J. MacPhail: The Liberals are blowing a small for- tune to sell the B.C. Rail deal to British Columbians, but all the spin in the world can't hide some basic truths. Yesterday the Premier made a big deal about the fact that taxpayers won't have to pay $30 million in interest payments on B.C. Rail's debt. But as the Premier knows, B.C. taxpayers were never on the hook for that debt. It's paid by B.C. Rail through its revenues, not by the taxpayers.

To the Premier: is he so desperate to sell this bad deal to British Columbians that he's willing to make claims for the deal that aren't true, or was it just an innocent oversight? Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite probably has not paid much attention to the finances of the prov- ince in the last ten years. Certainly, she didn't when she was on the government side of the House. The fact of the matter is that the dollars paid out for debt from B.C. Rail are dollars that are not available to the province of British Columbia.

The fact of the matter is that this province has had to write off $860 million over the last 15 years. The fact of the matter is that this provides us with a long-term economic future for the north and the interior of this province that people have been looking for — a long-term, sustainable rail system and private sector investment into the rail system. In fact, this single partnership transaction will generate literally billions of dollars of private sector investment in British Columbia's economy. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J.

MacPhail: The Premier knows full well that the taxpayers weren't on the hook for that debt servicing at all. Yet he refuses to come clean just now. Not only did the Premier claim that taxpayers would save $30 mil- lion a year that they never had to spend, but he also made a big deal about the fact that B.C. Rail will now pay municipal taxes in Prince George and Squamish. Let me remind the Premier of a campaign promise he made in a speech to the Union of B.C. Municipalities on October 26, 2000. Here's what he said: "Crown cor- porations in a B.C.

Liberal government will pay your community full property taxes." There's the quote from the Premier. That was a commitment over three years ago to every single municipality in the province. Just like the promise to give municipalities revenue-sharing from traffic fines, that promise, too, has been broken. It's not a spin machine grinding away in the back rooms; it's an election-promise Cuisinart grinding it all up into nothing. Does the Premier believe that British Columbians should now thank him for a deal that breaks a promise

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8211 not to sell B.C. Rail because it results in money to mu- nicipalities that was promised a long time ago? By the way, the promise was made that all Crown corpora- tions would pay property tax. It's a zero sum for the municipalities. Why doesn't he just admit it? Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not quite sure what the member opposite is opposed to. Is she opposed to the fact that the Peace River regional district will see their property taxes go from $59,000 to $1.2 million?

Is the member opposite opposed to the fact that 100 Mile House will watch as the private sector puts five times more, in terms of property tax, into their coffers? Is the member opposite opposed to the fact that the district of North Vancouver will watch as the private sector in- creases its contribution to property tax in North Van- couver by half a million dollars? The member opposite may be opposed to the pri- vate sector contributing to local government. We want the private sector contributing to local government. We said we would have Crown corporations pay full property tax, and they will. Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a fur- ther supplementary. J. MacPhail: So the Premier yesterday takes credit that some municipalities are going to get a Crown cor- poration finally paying property taxes that he prom- ised to municipalities on behalf of all Crown corpora- tions, and he has yet to deliver. But that was presented as great news. Again the Premier takes great pains to sell the idea that B.C. Rail is a drain on the public purse — again, not true. Year after year B.C. Rail pays dividends to the public — money that's used to pay for health care and education. Far from being a drain, B.C.

Rail is a profit- able asset that helps support our province, particularly in health and education. [1420] Can the Premier advise this House how much money B.C. Rail paid in dividends to taxpayers over the 15-year period prior to this government taking power — dividends that will now flow not to British Columbians but to the CN shareholders? Just how much? Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite should know that had the government not written down $860 million of debt, indeed B.C. Rail would have had tax- payers support it. That's what the auditor said. The member opposite should know that.

Further, the mem- ber opposite knows that the "dividends" that B.C. Rail supposedly has paid over the last 15 years might amount to $130 million. There has been $860 million in write-offs, and those write-offs are taxpayer-supported write-offs. It's the government, the taxpayer, paying for that. What we have managed to do here is…. There is a billion dollars of private sector investment that is com- ing up front for British Columbia. The member oppo- site may be opposed to this. She may be opposed to a $135 million northern development initiative.

She may be opposed to the port of Prince Rupert finally reach- ing its full potential. She may be opposed to Prince George becoming a continental gateway. She may be opposed to tour passenger service making available and creating hundreds of jobs in British Columbia. She's opposed to it, I'm for it, and we're sticking with it. PRIVATIZATION AND VIABILITY OF B.C. RAIL J. Kwan: The Premier won't admit it, but B.C. Rail paid a total of $137.7 million in dividends to the public. Now he's selling the whole company for 90 years for what amounts to $500 million.

That's about $5.5 million a year that CN is paying for a company that made $64 million profit last year. Someone is getting ripped off here, and it is not CN. Can the Premier explain how selling a profitable company that paid $137 million in dividends over the last 15 years for $5.5 million a year is a good deal? If he can sell that, he should try selling the Brooklyn Bridge to Cincinnati. Hon. G. Campbell: The members opposite didn't do math very well when they were in government, and they do it even worse now that they're over on the other side of the House.

The members opposite think it makes sense for $130 million to generate $860 million of taxpayer-written-off debt. The members opposite don't seem to understand that $502 million of debt causes debt service costs, and those are costs we don't have to meet. A billion dollars. We will be able to pay off $500 million in B.C. Rail debt. We will be able to expand the transportation infrastructure in the province, and the private sector will be investing in the rail right-of-way. The private sector will be investing in new cars. The private sector will be investing in providing better ser- vice.

The private sector will be investing in the port of Prince Rupert. The private sector will be investing in the city of Prince George. The private sector will be investing in the interior and the north of this province. That's how we're going to drive the economy forward. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. B.C. RAIL PENSION FUND J. Kwan: British Columbians know when they're being sold a bill of goods, and they know they were not told the truth in the election. They can't be fooled by a spin machine on overdrive.

Right now there is a $150 million surplus sitting in the B.C. Rail pension fund. Nowhere does the government say what's happening to that surplus. The company couldn't answer that question today. [1425] To the Premier again: as part of the deal to sell B.C. Rail for a song, who got the surplus — CN or the Min- ister of Finance?

8212 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 Hon. J. Reid: It's very important that the workers are being respected. We worked very hard to make sure that their rights are being respected. If that pension fund were wrapped up today, there would actually be a defi- cit in it. That pension fund goes with the workers, and any benefit from that pension fund is attached to the workers who are eligible for it in the future. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY W. Cobb: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour, and it's more to do with forestry.

We've been developing a number of forest policies and legislation changes in this last year, but one of the major issues in my area is safety for the w o r k e r s . W e h a v e a n u m b e r o f f a t a l i t i e s a n d i n j u r i e s both in the logging industry and in the trucking indus- try. Can the minister tell me what's being done to en- sure the safety of these workers? Hon. G. Bruce: There have been a number of changes that we've been working through with the workers compensation system, and of course, as the member opposite would know, we just brought in a new board ten months ago.

That board has been very concerned that workers compensation, as a system, is focused on safety in the workplace. In respect to the forestry sector, it still has, next to the construction industry, the highest fatality and seri- o u s i n j u r y r a t e t h a t w e h a v e i n t h e p r o v i n c e . I n f a c t , over the last 15 years in work that's been done, that fatality rate has not come down.

The chairman of the board has put together a spe- cialized task force with a number of players from the industry, both the union side and company, to focus in on those particular industries that have a good safety record and see what we can take from that and apply it through the sector so that we can try and get to a situa- tion where we're actually reducing fatalities and seri- ous injuries in the forest industry. CN RAIL OPERATION OF B.C. RAIL SERVICES AND IMPACT ON JOBS P. Nettleton: I have some serious issues to raise with respect to potential job loss at B.C. Rail.

The fig- ures that are being bandied about really are all over the landscape. According to a leading B.C. columnist, the latest and perhaps most accurate figures seem to be a possible 35 percent reduction in the workforce. This is scary stuff for B.C. workers to anticipate — t h a t i s , B . C . R a i l w o r k e r s . B u t h a v i n g r e a d u p o n t h e track record of CN's CEO, Hunter Harrison, a southern cracker and American entrepreneur if there ever was one, it would not be beyond the realm of possibility.

Harrison's success is measured by how much he can reduce the operating ratio — having, for example, re- duced Illinois Central operation from 90 percent to 62.5 percent in less than seven years. My question, then, is to the Premier: can the Premier set the record straight for us on the job figures, as well as give us his take on Mr. Harrison's plans in this regard? And, oh, can the Premier also tell us how much face-to- face interaction he's had with Mr. Harrison, please? Hon. G. Campbell: To the member opposite: the first time I met Mr.

Harrison was yesterday at roughly ten to 11, before we went to make the announcement. So he's seen me with Mr. Harrison as much as I've been with Mr. Harrison. Let me say this to the member opposite. We are concerned about the job impacts here as well, and I think it's important to note this. There are approxi- mately 420 jobs that may be affected in the B.C. Rail network. There are 250 of those jobs that would be vol- untary retirements, early retirements, etc. There are an estimated 180 involuntary job losses that would take place as a result of the partnership agreement that's been entered into.

I think it's important to note that the agreement that's been entered into will create an additional minimum 250 jobs as a result of the tour trains and passenger trains that are available. The announcement we made yester- day will result in an additional 75 new jobs at the airport at Prince George, as well as 300 indirect jobs. There are an estimated 500 new jobs that are anticipated in the port of Prince Rupert in the northwest of this province. [1430] More important than all of that, Mr. Harrison — and we had no reason not to take him at his word — said he wants CN to expand its services in the north.

They announced yesterday that there will be three to four years of additional contracts between a coal sup- plier in Asia as a result of the reduced times it takes to get from the Asian markets to North America and vice versa. I can tell the member opposite this. The billion dollars of investment that is coming up front, the mil- lions and millions or billions of dollars over the term of this, will mean more jobs for the interior, more jobs for the north and a long-term sustainable economy for the northern part of our province. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the auditor general's report No. 4, Alternative Payments to Physicians: A Program in Need of Change , to the Legislature. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 96. Committee of the Whole House TIMBER LICENCES SETTLEMENT ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 96; H. Long in the chair.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8213 The committee met at 2:32 p.m. Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:33 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 96, Timber Licences Settlement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. G. Collins: It gives me great pleasure to call second reading of Bill 89.

Second Reading of Bills BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY (REVITALIZATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. J. Reid: I move the bill now be read a second time. In 2001 we made a commitment to revitalize the economy and manage taxpayers' money responsibly. This year we developed the B.C. heartlands economic strategy to help fulfil this commitment. It is with this commitment and this strategy in mind that I propose Bill 89, the British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003. [1435] B.C. Rail is struggling under significant debt. That has restricted B.C. Rail's ability to reinvest.

Shippers have been telling us this, mayors have been telling us this, and railway communities have been telling us this. They've been asking for the responsible manage- ment of the railway. They tell us that shippers are turn- ing to alternative transportation sources because B.C. Rail is no longer competitive and is under-resourced and cannot meet its service requirements. As a result, our rail communities are suffering. B.C. Rail no longer has the means to make the capi- tal improvements needed to win back their customers.

We have a number of communities from North Van- c o u v e r t o F o r t N e l s o n t h a t r e l y o n t h e s e r v i c e s p r o - vided by B.C. Rail. We must keep B.C. Rail going, but we must manage it responsibly. This bill will allow us to do that. B.C. Rail is draining taxpayers' funds needlessly. Over the past 15 years taxpayers have lost $857 million in railway asset write-offs, and that's on top of the railway's current $502 million debt. This bill will allow us to pay off that debt and put an end to the ongoing burden on taxpayers.

In consultation with the shippers, the mayors and the railway communities, we've developed a new model, a responsible model that will maintain the rail- way as a publicly owned asset. After a thorough evaluation process, cabinet selected CN as the success- ful proponent to operate our railway. By allowing CN to operate the railway and invest in the infrastructure, we can get B.C. Rail back on track. This bill allows us to put this revitalization plan in motion. It amends the British Columbia Railway Act to provide long-term security for Crown ownership of the railway right-of-way, railbed and track. B.C.

Rail is an important government asset, and it is important that we retain ownership of the right-of-way, railbed and track. It will enable the British Columbia Railway Company to enter into a long-term partnership with a third-party operator by providing access to the railway right-of-way for railway purposes. This amendment will clarify legislative authority for the British Columbia Railway Company. It will clar- ify that the British Columbia Railway Company has legislative authority to enter into partnerships and to undertake property transfers and subdivisions.

There are currently some discrepancies between the British Columbia Railway Act and the Railway Act. This amendment will clarify any discrepancies. It will ensure that the British Columbia Railway Company maintains control over the port subdivision and that successor rights for B.C. Rail Ltd. employees are pro- tected. The bill will allow for the smooth transition of inter-company land transactions to ensure long-term protection by the Crown. It will also allow by OIC an amalgamation of B.C. Rail properties and a bypass of Land Title Act requirements for a few subdivisions.

There are more than 3,000 properties involved in refin- ing and protecting the railway right-of-way. Given the scope of the number of properties involved and the need to ensure public ownership is protected in the shortest term possible, an efficient land transfer mechanism is required. Shippers have asked for this, mayors have asked for this, and rail communities have asked for this. We have worked hard with them to develop a new model for rail revitalization. This bill is another step forward in that process.

A revitalized railway will return job opportunities to B.C. at the port of Prince Rupert, at the new wheel shop CN will open, and in the service and hospitality industries. It will bring investment back to the railway in the form of 2,100 new or upgraded railcars, and it will see the reopening of the Dawson Creek to Hythe subdivision. It will reduce shipping times by establish- ing a Chicago express route, and an open gateway pro- gram will make the railway competitive and will bring shippers back to the rail line. CN and B.C. Rail will issue an RFP to develop new tourist passenger train services.

This will create hun- dreds of jobs in the hospitality and tourism sector.

8214 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 This investment partnership will ensure the long- term sustainability of the railway while allowing us to maintain public ownership of the right-of-way, railbed and track, and it will increase economic activity not only in the heartlands, where our railway communities are situated, but in all of British Columbia. [1440] P. Nettleton: Responding, then, in second reading. It's now almost official. A deal has been struck between the B.C. government and CN Rail for CN to take over and operate B.C.

Rail, the details of which may demon- strate that the north and Prince George have finally been heard loud and clear — at least according to the gov- ernment's spin on the sale. The rail reps are more than a tad cautious. The resulting agreement, which seems on the surface a far cry from the original request for pro- posals, proves that a united front can have a powerful effect even on a big deconstructionist government. T h a t b r i n g s u s t o s t e p 2 , w h i c h s h o u l d h a v e b e e n step 1. That's Bill 89, British Columbia Railway (Revi- talization) Amendment Act, 2003.

This is legislation to enable and facilitate the privatization of B.C. Rail, which I have opposed for many years — in fact, since 1996 — and continue to oppose with my limited means since becoming an independent member of this Legis- lature. It would appear this is a compromise deal that has been arrived at, barring further information coming to light during the assessment and approval process, which may in fact undermine the deal. If the deal passes these tests, it could be said that the B.C.

Liberal government has finally recognized the value and the voting power of northern and central British Columbia, and in particular Prince George. But what a round- about way to finally recognize it — a seven-year story: the threat to sell B.C. Rail, the promise not to and the promise now broken. According to the government, when is a sale not a sale? Apparently when it's modified, concession by grudging concession, with a wary eye on the public and the pundits. The government may say that it has not made any concessions, that this was their plan from the beginning. Not so, I say.

Obviously, concessions h a v e b e e n m a d e o r a t l e a s t v e r b a l i z e d s o f a r , a n d t h e direction of government has appeared to have shifted somewhat, at least on this one issue. But this govern- ment has shown that it has not been turned away from its indiscriminate privatization agenda. Privatization is an issue-by-issue battle that will continue as long as the Premier views the selling-off of B.C.'s assets as furthering his ideological goals. Does B.C.

Rail see that an agreement does not signify a re- versal in direction by this government but rather is a meeting of two opposing parties at a halfway point? The two parties I am referring to are the government and the anti-privatization public sector. This was a forced but nonetheless major compromise by the gov- ernment in the face of overwhelming public protest. It is my opinion that with a transparent, open process, we could have achieved the same or better ends without the angst, frustration and confrontation. B.C. Rail could have been retained as a revitalized Crown corporation, where the B.C.

Rail Crown corpo- ration would not have had to become the B.C. Railway Company to achieve the Premier's goal of converting it i n t o a t e s t c a s e o f p u b l i c - p r i v a t e p a r t n e r s h i p . I t i s a n affront to the public intelligence to try to pass it off as anything less than privatization. Yesterday at the announcement which I attended, the Premier said that he agreed, back in 2002, with Mayor Kinsley of Prince George that the goal was not to privatize B.C. Rail but to find private partners — outsource but not privatize.

We've had this debate be- fore, and it's futile to reduce it to the level of semantics. How did we get from there to now, with the B.C. Rail Crown corporation becoming the B.C. Railway Company? The Premier explains it away by saying that underneath the rail still remains the B.C. Rail corpora- tion, literally. The Crown corporation owns everything up to the rails. We own the bed and the bed rails. But nothing that rolls on those rails belongs to the people of British Columbia, at least not for 90 years. You can ar- gue 60, but none of us will be around to prove it. [1445] Can you follow the Premier's logic?

I can't, but hopefully you can, because most of you are still true believers. If the Premier says it's so, it must be so. Only time will tell as the details come out, and regardless of Tuesday's announcement, it's not a done deal yet. U.S. President George W. Bush announced that the war was over in May, but all that banner-waving didn't make it so. Talking about hoopla, let's look at the promise that this deal holds for B.C., according to the Premier. The Premier's announcement and presentation was way over the top. He said as much. "Boy, have I got a deal for you." It's the stuff that elections are made of.

CN's number one man, American entrepreneur Hunter Har- rison, remarked that the Premier was a hard act to fol- low. Mr. Harrison, we find him a hard act to follow too. The deal as outlined by the Premier was all- encompassing. There's nothing this deal can't fix, a panacea for the whole province. If we are to believe all he said, the people's protests have been heard. The Premier has answered, and untold and unrelated bless- ings are about to drop from the sky. Fortunately, the Premier was soon brought down to earth when he faced tough questions from the media.

The glib an- swers he had provided here in the Legislature didn't stand up in the glare of public scrutiny. It's not so quick, and it's not so easy. In reality this has been an evolving process, unnecessarily drawn out and egregious not only for the communities along the B.C. Rail line but for the bidding proponents as well. This government recognizes pressure, and now the average British Columbian also recognizes the power of their individual and collective voices.

What I am about to say may alarm some, because I am cautiously accepting of what has been achieved by this unified effort coming from all corners of the province. I will be

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8215 voting against this B.C. Rail bill on principle, despite the fact that major concessions have been made and that the north may well benefit if the government and CN are true to their word and if the facts are straight. Hmm, that's a lot of ifs. Credit for any genuine and lasting benefits that flow from this deal cannot be claimed by the govern- ment, as concessions were wrested at considerable sac- rifice to the people involved.

If there's any credit due, if the deal is actually creditable, it should go to the peo- ple of northern and central British Columbia for hang- ing in there and resisting the original premise. Sadly, we did not stop B.C. Rail from being privat- i z e d , b u t w e d i d s t o p t h e g o v e r n m e n t f r o m g i v i n g i t away. If the details coming out of this deal are consis- tent with the claims being made, I congratulate the people of the north, which include the B.C.

Rail work- ers, most mayors and many council members, newspa- per editors and various other media outlets that have championed this issue and have demonstrated tremen- dous courage in the face of overwhelming odds. Vigi- lance is still required, especially on behalf of the rail workers and their families. Thankfully, this deal will not be concluded in the winter. It is not my place to itemize all of the pros and cons of this deal. I will instead leave that to government while continuing to monitor the commitments that have been and will be made between CN Rail and the people of B.C. J.

MacPhail: I rise to speak to Bill 89, a bill whose title is even misleading: British Columbia Railway (Re- vitalization) Amendment Act, 2003. Mr. Speaker, you can't amend

an act that doesn't exist. The very title is used as spin with this government, the same way their explanatory notes are. There is no British Columbia Railway Revitalization Act — none whatsoever — yet these Liberal caucus members are more than happy to have the government, even through use of legislation, do it with spin and misleading. [1450] The government, the Premier, the Minister of Transportation and all the Liberal MLAs have no man- date whatsoever to bring this bill forward. They have no mandate to speak to it; they have no mandate to support it.

In spite of all that, as they do just that, they are breaking a fundamental election promise — a promise each and every one of them signed on to. They cam- paigned on a new-era commitment that was an- nounced and trotted out during the last election on April 23, 2001, as a big breakthrough — a big campaign promise of a new-era commitment to not sell or privat- ize B.C. Rail. Prior to that, they waffled. They, of course, during the '96 election had said that they were going to sell it, and they lost the elec- tion.

So they thought about it, they reviewed it, and on April 23, 2001, they released their New Era document that for the first time, right during the election, made a commitment to not sell or privatize B.C. Rail. It was a deliberate act during the election. It wasn't just off the side of their desk that they made that commitment. They brought out a new-era commitment, and they were elected by constituents who took them at their word on the promise that they made during the elec- tion. Now their word is worthless. B.C. Rail has been sold. It has been privatized.

Bill 89, this legislation, is a clear contradiction of the new-era promise, no matter how this government tries to weasel out of that. A sale is a sale; a deal is a deal. The Liberal MLAs and the executive council have bro- ken the public trust. The Premier — I can't believe he still does this — claims that he has not sold or privatized B.C. Rail. Per- haps he could explain, then, why Hunter Harrison, the CEO of CN, told investment analysts — away from the media, away from the Liberal MLAs — yesterday on a conference call that CN paid $750 million to buy the business. Mr.

Harrison knows when he's purchased something. Oh, Mr. Harrison said that they paid $750 million. That's the maximum taxpayers are going to see for this — the maximum. But I can hardly wait for the Liberals to stand up and say how wrong Mr. Harrison is. It's not us saying this; it's Mr. Harrison himself. Even the CEO of CN understands that he just bought B.C. Rail. Why is it so difficult for the Premier to admit to that? The issue at hand is simple. The Premier and the Finance minister are so desperate for cash because their economic policy has been a complete failure.

It's such a failure that they've been forced to sell a public asset — a profitable public asset. I note that the government tries to say it's not prof- itable. They try to say: "Oh, isn't it awful that B.C. Rail had to write down the debt accumulated by the Ben- nett government in the eighties?" Well, the Bennett government knew that B.C. Rail was the only avenue of opening up the economy in the northeast sector. T h e y k n e w t h a t t h e y h a d t o m a k e a n i n v e s t m e n t f o r coal and that there had to be a spur line there. [1455] No one stood up and challenged the B.C.

Social Credit government under Bill Bennett when they in- vested $600 million in that spur line. The very people who are now backing this Liberal government backed the building of that rail line — the same business peo- ple. The same people said that was a good idea. Well, it turned out that it didn't do what the Social Credit gov- ernment of the day promised, because the coal con- tracts didn't come through from Japan. There was competition from the southeast, the Cranbrook area, as well, just like there will be competition amongst vari- ous regions again.

The government, my government and my colleague's government, was forced to write off $600 million of debt on B.C. Rail. Never once have I heard this Liberal government get up and badmouth then Premier Bill Bennett for risking that investment. Oh, they badmouth other megaprojects every day, but not that one. Why is that? It's because Bill Bennett supports this government. He's the one that stands up with this government and says: "Oh, this government is doing a great job." Well, his

8216 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 government made a mistake in B.C. Rail, and the debt had to be written off. Is that B.C. Rail's fault? No, it isn't. For this government to somehow make a leap that the writing off of that debt really would have meant that taxpayers were paying an extra $30 million in debt-servicing charges is beyond belief. Then, of course, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Finance and the MLAs from Prince George say: "Oh, but B.C. Rail isn't profitable." Oh, really? From the year 1986-87 through to the year 2000, B.C.

Rail delivered a dividend to taxpayers every year — a total of $137.7 million in dividends over a 15-year pe- riod. Who's going to get that dividend now? CN share- holders. The dividends paid into health and education, building hospitals and schools, building roads — straight from B.C. Rail — are the same as what the north is now going to get in total. Somehow the northern MLAs are saying that this is great? The north loses $137 million over 15 years in dividends, and they get about $150 million over 90 years. Gee, is that Liberal math? Is that what the north- ern mayors are clapping their hands about?

They gained $137 million over 15 years, and now that's wiped out, but they get $150 million over 90 years. Just do the math, northerners. You are losing tens of mil- lions of dollars each and every year, even with this deal. The Liberals have broken one election promise in a dismal effort to save another. The Finance minister needs cash to plug the gaping holes in his budget, and apparently he is willing to sell out communities. He promises to do it, and the Liberal MLAs support him. The people of British Columbia deserve the truth. They deserve better than broken promises.

They de- serve to be represented by members of this Legislative Assembly. Instead, they have 70-odd MLAs willing and ready to go back on their word, to break a funda- mental promise and ram through legislation in the dy- ing days of this session. The Liberal government and the Premier have no mandate for this. Bill 89, the Brit- ish Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, is a broken promise now entrenched in legis- lation. CN has bought B.C. Rail. Hunter Harrison of CN knows it; the Premier knows it; the people of B.C. know it. It is a done deal. B.C.

Rail is gone. [1500] The Premier didn't even give this House a chance to debate the legislation before he put on a glitzy, pricey, taxpayer-paid, rhetoric-filled infomercial yesterday — a s e r i e s o f n e w s r e l e a s e s s t r u n g t o g e t h e r , m u c h o f i t factually incorrect. According to CN and the Premier, the deal is done. T h e y b o t h a n n o u n c e d t h a t y e s t e r d a y . I n f a c t , i t w a s done on October 15. Yet day after day when we asked the Minister of Transportation questions about this, she denied any knowledge of the fact that the deal was done in October.

Yesterday both the Premier and the CN CEO said: "The deal is done." They said it. So what chance do we have here in this Legislative Assembly to debate the bill? None. It's going to pass. In fact, this government probably thinks: "Oh, legis- lation. What a bother." The Liberal MLAs will be whipped to support it. The Premier will order the troops to fall in line. "The broken promise must be passed," he said — and it will, because this Premier is desperate for cash. He's so desperate for cash that he's going to pay off a mortgage by selling the house.

The deal was announced yesterday at an unbe- lievably expensive news conference — a news confer- ence that gave the Premier a chance to sell his broken promise in some sort of positive light. He called the sell-off an investment partnership. Well, he makes that commitment out of complete denial. The Premier is in denial. It is official. The tag line for the deal was: "A billion-dollar in- vestment." All the media picked it up. All the media just printed it as if it were true. Well, some of the media got what Mr. Harrison said. First off, $250 million of that supposed $1 billion isn't even guaranteed.

Can you imagine if a New Democrat government had made that claim? Do you think the Vancouver Sun and the Times Colonist would have printed that? No. They would have printed, "Government makes false claim of a billion-dollar deal," because it is a false claim. It's a completely false claim of a billion-dollar deal. CN is going to hand over a billion dollars, and then taxpayers are going to give CN back $250 million. Well, we're all taxpayers, aren't we? So what CN giveth with one hand is taken back from us out of another pocket, but we're still $250 million shy of a billion dollars for a profitable rail line.

CN gets that for 90 years — lock, stock and barrel — despite what the Minister of Trans- portation tries to claim — that we still own the railbed and the right-of-way. Now, of course, there's even double jeopardy on that $250 million. If Canada Customs and Revenue Agency doesn't agree with the Premier on tax credits owed as a result of this deal to CN, then CN gets to reduce the amount of cash it gives British Columbians by $250 million and B.C. taxpayers are on the hook completely.

If the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency do that massive tax credit giveaway, at least the burden of a bad deal is shared by other Canadians. [1505] Anyway, it's either a rotten $250 million giveaway for all Canadians, or it's a really rotten tax giveaway for British Columbians alone. There is no assurance that the tax credits will come to pass. Thank God for Mr. Harrison. He actually gave us the facts yesterday. Mr. Harrison recognized that reality in his analysts' confer- ence call. He was quite proud of the fact that he bought a profitable company for $750 million.

The Vancouver Sun reported that, and good on them. I don't know why the Vancouver Sun then said in the headline it was a billion-dollar deal, when elsewhere they actually ad- mitted that it wasn't. Anyway, there is a distinct and very real possibility that the taxpayers will be called on to cover at least 25 percent of this deal. Well, what about the rest? The $500 million comes in and goes out immediately to write off a debt that B.C. Rail was managing quite fine.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8217 The taxpayers weren't managing that debt. It was non- government-supported, non-taxpayer-supported debt. No matter how much the Premier tries to obfuscate on that issue, no matter how much they try to blame the auditor general for their lack of understanding, it's non-taxpayer-supported debt. B.C. Rail was managing that just fine through its revenues, just as CN will con- tinue to manage that debt through its revenues. Not only is there no benefit to the taxpayer, there's no benefit to the shippers either. They're not going to see a change.

That same non-taxpayer-supported debt will be CN shareholder–supported debt now and will be passed on through pricing. So a claim of a $30 mil- lion advantage to B.C. taxpayers in no longer having to service that debt is just plain wrong. So CN forks over $500 million and gets a debt-free company. No benefit to the taxpayer — $5 million in, $5 million out. There's nothing about an investment there — nothing. To their credit, the government has managed to set aside some money for the communities. It's only 17 percent of the total package, but they did find it in their hearts to give some money to communities.

Let's look at those figures. Some of it will go to de- serving projects, and I sincerely hope that it's well used, because our northern communities need all the help they can get. They have been completely ignored by this government to date. There will be $4 million for an expansion of the Prince George Airport. The government has been promising that for ages. There will be $17.2 million to fund the expansion of the port of Prince Rupert. But let's be clear. That expansion is over $62 million to ac- tually get it done. There's no commitment from either the federal government or CN.

There's no guarantee that CN or the federal government is going to invest in that expansion — none. So Prince Rupert is a quarter of the way toward its goal of getting a port authority, a deep-water port there, but that's all. They cannot look to one single guarantee that the port will actually be built. Of course, as the port of Prince Rupert gains, the Delta Port of the Vancouver Port Authority loses. It's a zero-sum game. The port authority knows that. Delta Port knows that. [1510] There's $15 million for a first nations trust fund and $135 million for a northern development initiative, and over 400 jobs lost.

The railway isn't even going to stop at Prince George anymore. There's absolutely no in- vestment required whatsoever by CN in Prince George, yet the northern communities get a one-time shot for 90 years. For the next 90 years they get a total of $130 mil- lion to help those troubled communities from Squam- ish north right to the B.C. border and from Prince Rupert right through to the eastern border of British Columbia. That's the big announcement: 17 percent of $1 billion goes to our communities. Dig deeper, and it gets a little sketchy. Let's look at the northern development initiative.

Some $60 million will be divided into four regional funds — the regions being the Peace, Prince George, the northwest and the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Those regions get $15 million each. The payroll from B.C. Rail in the lost jobs would be bigger than that on a yearly basis. The suppliers servicing B.C. Rail get double or triple that every year from B.C. Rail. All of that will be gone now. Fifteen million bucks, a one-time shot for the next 90 years. That's what four regions get. The entire Peace region gets $15 million out of the $1 billion. That's 1.5 percent of the whole deal.

How in heaven's name is that a good deal for the Peace? I can hardly wait for the members from the Peace region to get up and make that claim. The entire northwest gets 1.5 percent out of this. How is that a good deal for them? Another $25 million will be set aside to fund the regional boards. That's not even a direct investment in infrastructure. What's that — a pork barrel for some Liberal board appointees? It's got nothing to do with investment in permanent infrastructure. It's not going to go into roads; it's not going to go into bridges; it's not going to go into schools or hospitals.

It's going to g o i n t o r e g i o n a l b o a r d s m a d e u p o f L i b e r a l s . W o w , that's really exciting — not. For this broken promise, communities across the north have been shortchanged. The entire north will receive less than 20 percent of the $1 billion. The money will be spread so thin that I predict it will have little, if any, economic impact. By my tally so far, the allocated funds don't add up to the $1 billion. Hmm. I thought this was a billion- dollar investment. That's what the Premier said.

That's what he spent tens of thousands of dollars for, paying to slap it across every piece of paper and backdrop he could. So far there are a $171 million investment and a $500 million write-off that mean nothing to the taxpay- ers of British Columbia, and then another $250 million in tax credits that will go to CN and out of British Co- lumbia taxpayer pockets. Where's the other $329 million? It's going into gov- ernment coffers — a government desperate for cash. They've sold off a Crown corporation, broken an elec- tion promise and misled the voters. Why?

Because they need $329 million to make up for their failed economic policies. This is the third year of the highest deficits in each of those three years ever in the history of British Columbia's public finances — ever. So the Minister of Finance has sold off a profitable Crown corporation to make up for his miserable failure, and he's going to get $329 million to do that. [1515] That's where that money's going — right into gov- ernment coffers for the Minister of Finance to plug a hole in his failed fiscal and economic policy. It's money sucked right out of British Columbia's economy.

That $329 million isn't going to add one red cent to the GDP — not one red cent. And this is a government that has added ten times that amount to debt already on gov- ernment books. In its first three years it has increased the debt at a rate unheard of. I never hear the Liberal MLAs talking about that. So we have a Finance minister who increases the debt not through investing in British Columbia but by

8218 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 running operating deficits that are now an accumu- lated total of well over $4 billion. He had to sell off a Crown corporation to pay down one-tenth of the debt he's racked up, which his government personally has racked up. Never see that reported — about how this government has racked up debt at a rate unheard of by any previous government ever. I sure hope that the MLAs for the north are ready to work hard, extremely hard.

They're going to have to fight tooth and nail to get any of that $329 million, be- cause the Minister of Finance ain't going to give it to them. He's not going to let it be torn out of his hands. So the north gets nothing of that. I wish the northern MLAs well. I truly do, because so far it looks like the one hope they had of getting some sort of privatization deal right is going to fall flat again. They were so desperate to privatize B.C.

Rail that they would go to any extreme — break an election promise, tell the northern communities that they get less than 20 percent of the sell-off, take $329 million as a little drop in the bucket for the debt that they've in- curred elsewhere. But there's no getting around it. The northern MLAs' communities are getting the shaft on this deal. W e n e e d i n v e s t m e n t a n d g r o w t h i n t h e n o r t h — absolutely. Why not commit that $329 million to north- ern investment? No.

The Minister of Finance is going to take it and not add one iota of stimulation to our econ- omy, because he needs it to pay down his debt that he personally created, his government personally created. There is a great deal of suspicion and anxiety around this deal, and I am afraid we will never get the answers from this government. The deal is done. The Premier has made that clear. It's a bad deal for B.C. The supposed billion-dollar investment is cloaked in spin and rhetoric. The actual investment is minuscule when you look at the price tag.

So as I wish all the northern MLAs well in their attempts to ensure that their com- munities get the money they deserve, I really hope that the breaking of their promise is not in vain. The people of British Columbia believed this gov- ernment and this Premier during the election of 2001. They believed the Premier when on April 23, 2001, he and a bunch of his MLA candidates revealed a whole new commitment, and it said that the Liberals will not privatize or sell off B.C. Rail.

This bill, Bill 89, the Brit- ish Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, is nothing but a broken promise with a lot of glitz to hide the truth. It's a bad deal for B.C. The northern communities are getting a fraction of what they deserve. This deal is a sellout, and the Premier is leading the sellout. [1520] J. Kwan: I would like to take this opportunity and echo the words of my colleague the member for Van- couver-Hastings. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

Once you dig out from underneath all of the Premier's spin, the rhetoric and the glitz, it is clear that this deal is not what it is cracked up to be. Communi- ties are getting a fraction of the selling price. The so-called billion-dollar investment is simple PR, not reality. It is not $1 billion at all. It's $750 mil- lion, and that's potentially being generous. As my col- league pointed out, the tax credit issue may come back to haunt British Columbians, and British Columbians may well have to wear that — not CN. It is British Co- lumbians who are on the hook if the tax credit does not come to be.

In all of that the northern communities…. What they get are scraps. The Minister of Finance takes a portion of that money to cover up and to pay for his failed economic policy. This is a bad deal for British Columbia. For 90 years the profits of B.C. Rail will flow to a private company that has no responsibility whatsoever to protect British Columbia routes or jobs beyo nd 2008 — 90 ye ars, Mr. Speaker. The lost dividends from B.C.

Rail will go into the pockets of a private company, and it would not benefit British Columbians by contributing in the areas of education, health care, social services or road infra- structure — the things British Columbia and British Columbians need for the future. The $171 million going to communities from this deal will be pennies of what CN will pull from this deal for itself. This is not an in- vestment for B.C. It is a sellout for quick cash. The Premier has been spinning hard to communi- cate the supposed benefits of this deal.

My colleague went over how the actual investment in communities is a minuscule part of this deal. The Premier has also crowed about the tax benefits to communities. Well, if the Premier was true to his word in 2003 when he promised Crown corporations would pay their taxes to municipalities, then the tax benefit from this private company, CN, is zero. It's a zero-sum game. The net benefit in taxes for municipalities…. If the Premier lived up to his commitment that municipalities will get their taxes for Crown corporations, they're not gaining anything they haven't already lost.

The Premier admit- ted to that today in question period. He said he will make sure Crown corporations pay those taxes. Then the taxes from CN are not an addition in revenues for municipalities. [1525] If the Premier was so concerned, by the way, about municipal tax revenues, why has he refused to fulfil his election promise — yet another election promise he has not fulfilled — to transfer 75 percent of traffic fines to municipalities to help with policing costs? That prom- ise wasn't kept in the 2001 budget, in the 2002 budget, in the 2003 budget and apparently won't be kept in the 2004 budget.

That's some $200 million that should be going to municipalities. That's far above the $8.3 mil- lion the Premier claims will flow from this deal. It is yet another broken promise. This government — this Pre- mier, the Liberal government — has no credibility. What about the other benefits of this deal? A lot of those happen to be pure spin as well. The Premier was all excited about the quicker transportation times be- tween Prince George and Chicago. He said this deal will allow products to be shipped and to reach markets faster. Too bad this deal has nothing to do with it.

CN already has the capacity to ship to Chicago in 90 hours,

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8219 and it has nothing to do with this deal. The CEO of CN said in the press conference that his company has a new train that is already doing that. He was quite proud of his company's achievement in cutting the time from nine days to 90 hours. The Premier is trying to take credit for something he has nothing to do with. How about that? Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker. How about this new wheel shop in Prince George? B.C. Rail, the Crown corporation, was already planning to do that. Once again the Premier is trying to create something out of, as usual, nothing.

That's what the Premier is trying to do. Then there are the shipping rates. The Premier has been very proud of the fact that the rates will be, on average, 7 percent lower for shippers once this deal is done. Too bad the Premier didn't talk to Mr. Harrison about that one. Maybe he should have spent more than ten minutes before the announcement with Mr. Harri- son. He might have actually found out some facts and saved himself some embarrassment.

In the Vancouver Sun today the CEO of CN said that the rate will only apply to shipments between Vancouver and Prince George, not on movement between other points on the B.C. Rail line. The Premier is once again grasping at straws. S o m u c h o f t h i s p r o c e s s , s o m u c h o f t h i s a n - nouncement, is wrapped in suspicion. The other bid- ders complained about the process. They complained along the way. One bidder even dropped out. The winner was a major donor, it just so happens…. Per- haps it's a coincidence; I don't know. It just so happens that the winner is a major donor to the Liberal Party.

The fairness adviser has raised serious concerns about the leaks, and the Premier won't even show us the deal — just a glitzy press conference and a bunch of press releases with figures that are at best questionable. I hope the backbench MLAs from the north have better luck in getting answers than us. As it stands now, they are getting very little for this broken promise — a broken promise they traded their honour, their integrity and their word on. Make no mistake about it. It is a broken promise for $750 million. Mr. Harrison bought B.C. Rail, and apparently he bought the B.C.

Liberals too. [1530] They're going to ram this through in the dying days of the session. In fact, this Legislature in some ways — in the words of the Premier — is irrelevant, because he's already said the deal is done. B.C. Rail is sold to a private company, and the losers happen to be British Columbians — not for the short term but for the long term. [H. Long in the chair.] Hon. J. Reid moved adjournment of debate. Motion approved. Hon. G. Plant: I call debate on Motion 105 standing in the name of the House Leader on the order paper. Motions on Notice AMENDMENT TO SESSIONAL ORDER Hon. G.

Plant: The motion is: [That the Sessional Order passed by the House on February 11, 2003, amending Standing Order 2 be amended as follows: That

section 2 (2) (a) (ii) be amended by deleting the words "from October 6, 2003 to November 27, 2003 inclusive", and substituting therefore "from October 6, 2003 to December 3, 2003 inclusive."] [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] J. MacPhail: M r . S p e a k e r , I t a k e i t t h i s i s a d e b a t - able motion. Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is. J. MacPhail: The opposition rises to say: huh? The Attorney General or the Government House Leader doesn't even think he has to offer an explanation for breaking another promise. Doesn't even give the cour- tesy to the public or the Legislature about why they're doing this.

Of course, they didn't give courtesy to the Legislature to even tell within this House — to bring a motion inside this House — before they told the media they were going to extend the Legislature. Here's what happened, Mr. Speaker, and it took us all by surprise. For some reason unbeknownst to any of us inside this Legislature, the government is breaking its election promise, which it takes great pride in every day, that they're going to have fixed sittings and that all of us MLAs would know the

schedule — that it would be run like a business. Well, this is the third time they've broken that in a short two and a half years, the third time they've broken that promise. Why? To ram through draconian, extreme legislation that they don't want the light shone on. H e r e w e a r e a g a i n t o d a y . T h e y w a n t t o r a m through the B.C. Rail legislation with no scrutiny, be- cause every moment and every hour there's more scru- tiny on this B.C. Rail sell-off deal, it becomes more sus- picious, more suspect. Certainly, the claims are ripped to tatters about the benefits of the deal.

No, the Gov- ernment House Leader doesn't even bother to offer an explanation on that. H e r e ' s w h a t h a p p e n e d . M y c o l l e a g u e t h e m e m b e r for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I got called out into the hallway two days ago, on Monday around 5 o'clock, and a reporter says to us: "How do you feel about the Legislature being extended?" We said: "Huh — pardon? You must have your information wrong, reporter." And the reporter said: "Well, no, I called public affairs bureau, and they confirmed that the Leg- islature would be extended by a week." [1535] Public affairs bureau.

What is public affairs bureau? It's that spin-doctoring $45 million organization of po- litical appointees that reports directly to the Premier and writes news releases that give new meaning to

8220 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 misleading Liberal-speak every day. We saw a perfect example of that yesterday. Public affairs bureau is run- ning this legislative chamber. Do you know how ashamed my colleague and I felt? It was shame, actually. We were embarrassed, and we actually wanted to say: "Oh no, you must be wrong. That can't be so." This reporter — who is a darn good reporter, I might add, as they all are — said: "No, no. The public affairs bureau confirmed it." We said: "But that's not possible.

There's no notice of motion." "Oh yes, it's true." Then later that evening the Government House Leader snuck in a notice of motion that we're now de- bating. No explanation from the government why they're doing that — none. So shame on them. Clearly, it is with shame that they're doing this. Then one wonders why we need to extend the legislative sitting. It's not like the Liberal MLAs are doing anything. My colleague and I sit here day after day debating the substance of legislation that takes away union contracts and privatizes our health care system. Not a peep. I'm sorry; that is not fair.

One or two Liberals take a position on that. The rest of them are silent, stand up and support the government no matter what. Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. Every day as it gets examined, more and more people protest it, including the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and i t 's l e f t u p t o m y c o l l e ag u e and m e t o d e f e nd t he interests of those communities who are being run over roughshod by this government. It's not because they need to pass this legislation, the British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, be- cause the Premier said it's a done deal.

He said that yesterday. The deal doesn't even kick in until the sec- ond calendar quarter of 2004. The earliest — and be- lieve you me, I claim it will be the earliest — that there will be any effect on the deal will be April of 2004 — plenty of time for the government not to break its promise on fixed sittings and on reforming this Legisla- ture, plenty of time for them to come back and do what they promised to do, which was introduce all signifi- cant legislation in the spring sitting. Oh yeah, that's what the Government House Leader and the Premier said: we're having fixed sit- tings.

MLAs will be able to conduct their constituency business and their family business, because we'll know years ahead when this parliament is sitting — oh, ex- cept for this week. The Premier and the Government House Leader claim: "No, no. The fall sitting is just to clean up legisla- tion that was introduced in the spring, or non- significant legislation would be introduced." Really? Well, in this fall sitting of this session, the government has introduced 22 pieces of legislation. Is it controversial? You bet.

The Significant Projects Streamlining Act that overruns local government au- thority makes the Community Charter irrelevant — null and void, if you ask me. The B.C. Railway (Revi- talization) Amendment Act, 2003 breaks an election promise and sells off B.C. Rail. Bill 84, amending the Park Act, now allows for business to be done inside the parks. It destroys the Muskwa-Kechika park. [1540] Bill 94, the Health…. I don't know. The health pri- vatization act, it should be called.

For the first time ever in the history of Canada, as the minister admitted, ser- vices in our public hospitals will be delivered by pri- vate employers with no responsibility to the health authority. Hospitals will be built privately, for the first time ever in Canada. The Minister of Labour took great pride in saying that nowhere else does this legislation exist. Here we are in a fall sitting, and that's the kind of legislation we're debating. The government doesn't even have the gall to stand up and justify its actions. It slips it in, in the middle of some other controversial debate.

We're not going to go on at length, because there are two of us, joining with other colleagues sometimes — one or two — trying to hold this government to account. We'll do our job, forc- ing this government to be revealed for what it is, which is breaking election promise after election promise. This motion extending the legislative sitting, despite all of the promises they made, is just another example of a broken promise, and they don't even have the fortitude to explain why. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, apparently the mo- tion was not moved. Hon. S. Hagen: I move Motion 105. Mr.

Speaker: Before I call the question, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management seeks the floor. Hon S. Hagen moved adjournment of debate. Motion approved. Hon. S. Hagen: I call committee stage on Bill 75. [1545] Committee of the Whole House SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS STREAMLINING ACT (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 75; H. Long in the chair. The committee met at 3:49 p.m. On

section 2 (continued). J. Kwan: We were debating

section 2 on Bill 75. To follow up the question on

section 2, will these descrip- tions, as it is described under

section 2, be subject to the Freedom of Information Act? Since the minister, under sub (1), makes the recommendation to cabinet, one

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8221 would assume that it is not subject to freedom of in- formation. Could the minister please advise? Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is that this act is sub- ject to the Freedom of Information Act. That's correct. [1550] J. Kwan: No, I didn't say whether or not the act is subject to freedom of information. I said that the de- scription that is described under subsection (1)…. Would that information be subject to the Freedom of Information Act? The Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. J. Kwan: The minister seems confused, so let me spell it out for him. Under subsection (2) of

section 2, it reads as follows: "Before the minister recommends a project under subsection (1), the minister must (

a) de- termine the identity of the proponent of the project, and (

b) obtain from the proponent a description of the project that (

i) in form and content is satisfactory to the minister, and (ii) sets out the scope, intended opera- tions, anticipated constraints and other details of the project." The description that the minister receives of a par- ticular project — would that be subject to freedom of information? Hon. K. Falcon: My understanding is that would be advice to the minister. I haven't got the FOI Act in front of me, but I don't believe that would qualify as being FOI. J. Kwan: No, it's not advice to the minister. It's in- formation that the minister receives about a project.

Yesterday I asked the minister the question about whether or not he would be receiving written informa- tion about these projects so that he can review, pre- sumably, and that there be a public record, a written record available. He got up, Mr. Chair, and made fun of my question, saying: "We are the kind of govern- ment that relies on plans and business plans and so on. Of course those things would need to be in writing. How else can we examine the project?" My question is….

Those business plans, the de- scription, the details about the particular project that the minister is receiving, which ought to be public in- formation so that the public knows on what…. The details of a project on which the minister is making his decisions — that information ought to be made avail- able to the public through freedom of information. It's not advice to the minister. It's factual information from the proponents. Would that information be made available under freedom of information? Hon. K.

Falcon: The information that the public would be interested in knowing about is information on projects that are designated. The public will pre- sumably have little to no interest in every person who approaches the minister with a project that they may wish to have considered, which the minister — in 95 percent of the cases or even more — is unlikely to even consider. J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer my question, Mr. Chair. It's irrelevant whether or not the minister thinks the public is interested in getting that informa- tion at all.

It's up to the public to decide what informa- tion they would want to seek. It is this government's responsibility to make sure that when the public wants that information, it is in fact available. That's an open and accountable government — not to say: "Gee, we don't think you're interested, and we're going to make secret decisions behind closed doors, so we're not go- ing to show you the stuff." That's just complete non- sense from the minister. I'll give the minister one more chance.

The details of projects that the minister will be making decisions on and recommending to cabinet — whether or not those projects would receive a designation under this bill, whether or not the details of that information would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act…. If this government is at least going through the motions of pretending to be open and accountable, then the an- swer would be yes. [1555] Hon. K. Falcon: I want to assure the member that we will be fully compliant with every aspect of the Freedom of Information Act — fully. J. Kwan: Well, it's a simple question.

Would that information be subject to freedom of information? Would the people of British Columbia be able to access that information through the Freedom of Information Act? A simple question to the minister — yes or no. Or if he doesn't know the answer, perhaps we should wait for his staff to come in so we can get clarity on this. Hon. K. Falcon: I'm happy to, if my staff have any- thing to add when they arrive, add to that for the member, but I can tell the member that this act will be in full compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. J.

Kwan: Either the minister is trying to hide the in- formation, or he's ignorant of the information — one or the other. Does he know or not know whether or not in- formation received about projects by this minister for de- termination, whether or not those projects will be deemed to be designated under this act, be subject to freedom of information…? Yes or no? It's not that difficult. Hon. K.

Falcon: My staff has now arrived and has confirmed that yes, it will be fully compliant with the freedom of information and will be subject to the free- dom of information, subject to whatever terms and conditions also allow for exemptions under the FOI. I haven't got the act in front of me, but I'm presuming the member might know what those are too.

8222 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 J. Kwan: To confirm with the minister that the de- scriptions of the project which the minister would re- ceive would be subject to freedom of information? I just need a simple yes or no. Hon. K. Falcon: Through the Chair to the member: once again, yes.

Section 2 approved on the following division: [1600-1605] YEAS — 49 Falcon Coell Hogg J. Reid Bruce van Dongen Barisoff Wilson Lee Hagen Murray Collins Bond Nebbeling Stephens Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Nuraney Belsey Bell Chutter Trumper Johnston Bennett R. Stewart Hayer Krueger McMahon Bray Les Nijjar Bhullar Wong MacKay Cobb K. Stewart Visser Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Manhas NAYS — 3 Nettleton MacPhail Kwan On

section 3. Hon. K. Falcon: I move the amendment to

section 3 standing in my name on the orders of the day. [SECTION 3, in the proposed

section 3 (2) (

b) by deleting "create measures to replace any or all of" and substituting "approve the replacement of, and to create measures to replace, any or all of".] On the amendment. J. Kwan: Could the minister outline the rationale for the amendment? Hon. K. Falcon: This

section amends

section 3(2)(

b) to authorize the responsible minister to "approve the replacement of, and to create measures to replace, any or all of…." Then it lists the different classes of con- straints. J. Kwan: The way I read it, it's just likely grammati- cal errors — it seems to me. There's no significance, really, to the amendment. Am I right? Amendment approved. [1610] On

section 3 as amended. J. Kwan: In relation to a project recommended by the minister,

section 3 gives cabinet the power to: "By order, designate that project as a provincially signifi- cant project." From there the overriding process then begins. Will these decisions be subject to FOI? Hon. K. Falcon: Again, this bill will be subject to FOI with all its provisions and exemptions therein. J. Kwan: So the public will be able to access the decisions made for projects deemed to be provincially significant projects. Will there be any role for the independent officers of the House to participate in the process?

For example, if the auditor general wants to review the process that deemed a project significant, would he be able to do that? Hon. K. Falcon: Nothing in the act restricts the role of the auditor general whatsoever, so whatever powers the auditor general has would continue to apply. J. Kwan: The Auditor General Act has been amended as well, so when the Public Accounts Com- mittee requests that the auditor general undertake a project…. In that case, the matter will be brought be- fore the Public Accounts Committee for a review.

I would anticipate that the Public Accounts Committee could still exercise that right to review a provincially significant project that's been designated under this act. Am I correct? Hon. K. Falcon: Nothing in the act also restricts the scope of the Public Accounts Committee. J. Kwan: Is there any opportunity for public over- sight? Hon. K. Falcon: Nothing in this act restricts the ability of any current provisions of public oversight. J. Kwan: Nothing prevents it or restricts it, but has the minister planned for any public oversight processes? [1615] Hon. K.

Falcon: There's nothing in this act that adds any additional public oversights into any of the existing public oversights that apply today. There's also nothing, as I said earlier, that restricts any public over- sight. J. Kwan: To be clear, we're talking about

section 3, which deals with designation. The process for designa- tion is through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, who will consider a project in relation to which the

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8223 Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council receives a recommen- dation under

section 2, which is a recommendation from the minister, etc. Then that triggers the designa- tion process. My question to the minister is…. Maybe he can just tell me what opportunities there are for the public to engage in a public oversight process. Hon. K. Falcon: We will get into the consultation process under

section 4, and we'll be able to talk a little more fully about that. J. Kwan: I anticipated that the minister might say something like that, but the fact is this. After the con- sultations to remove the constraints are completed, what happens, as an example, if the local government says no? The community consultation process is impor- tant, so you can't ride roughshod over it. You can't just skip over it, because that's what

section 3 allows for. Can the government just sweep aside elected officials at the municipal level and override their processes? What happens when the community is opposed to fast- tracking a project? Hon. K. Falcon: P art o f t hat q u e s t i o n d o e s e ng a g e

section 4, but I think I was able to carve out the

section that would engage

section 3. Under

section 3(2)(a)(

i) and (ii) it states very clearly there…. What it does say is: "Ensure that decisions they are required to make in relation to the designated project are made expedi- tiously." Then (ii) says, "if and to the extent that it is decided that the designated project is to proceed," fa- cilitate the decision…. There's a certainty of process, not a certainty of outcome, under

section 3. J. Kwan: The minister actually didn't answer my question. I mean, that's precisely the point. Under sec- tion 3 the government, this minister, has the power to expedite a project, a project they'll designate as provin- cially significantly important. Therefore, it just moves right along. In doing that, the government can — I pre- sume, in reading this bill, and correct me if I'm wrong — use this power to override local governments' right and authority. It can use this power to override com- munity consultation processes, and it can use this power to override community plans.

Am I not right in understanding this? Hon. K. Falcon: The member is actually getting ahead of herself a bit. That actually is

section 4 discus- sion.

Section 3 is just referring to the designation act itself. [1620] J. Kwan: No, I'm not getting ahead of myself. Let m e j u s t r e a d t o t h e m i n i s t e r s e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( b ) : " (

b) t h e Lieutenant Governor in Council may, in the designa- tion order or in any subsequent order, authorize the responsible minister, subject to

section 4, to create measures to replace any or all of (

i) specified con- straints, (ii) constraints of a specified class, and (iii) any constraints affecting the designated project." What

section 3 does is give the government the authority to override a whole bunch of things. I'm ask- ing the minister whether that overriding power in- cludes, as I understand it, local government rights, like community consultation processes and community plans — just to illustrate by using these examples. Am I not right in understanding that? The Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further question. J. Kwan: If I'm not right, I would love it for the minister to get up in this House and say, "No, you're absolutely not right" — that the government will not, under this

section of the act, have the power to over- ride local government authorities, local government rights, local government consultation processes, com- munity plans, etc. Hon. K. Falcon: I think the clarification that may help the member is that

section 3 only gives the abil- ity to use those powers that the member mentioned, subject to

section 4. You'll see there under

section 3(2)(

b) it does say "subject to

section 4," so it ties in very importantly to the provisions laid out in

section 4. J. Kwan: God, what does a person have to do to get a straight answer from anybody in this government? We're going through committee. Mr. Chair, you'd think it was question period all over again. Why doesn't the minister just come clean and tell people that, yes, they have the authority to override these rights — what everybody already knows. I just want to confirm that in the language that's written here under

section 3, because it is this

section that gives the power to this government to override local government rights. It is in this

section that the government can designate a project as provincially significant. It's when they exercise that power that they will override local government authorities to arrive at their end result. Isn't that correct? Hon. K. Falcon: If the member reads

section 3(2)(

b) carefully, what it does say is that the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council may — not "must" but "may" — in the designation order…. Then it says "subject to sec- tion 4." I'm happy to have the discussion that the mem- ber opposite wants to have, but that is really more proper once we're engaged in

section 4. J. Kwan: Okay — whatever. We'll get to

section 4, but getting back to the decisions, and that's what we're dealing with under

section 3. After the consultations to remove constraints are completed, what happens if a local government says no? If the local government says no…. The community consultation process is impor- tant. Can the government just sweep aside the elected officials' authority? Could they just sweep it aside? What happens when the community is opposed to the fast-tracking of a project?

8224 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 Hon. K. Falcon: I think that is a perfectly legitimate question from the member, and I don't want to in any way undermine that at all. But I do want to remind the member that that actually is a discussion we need to have under

section 4. I'm absolutely perfectly happy to have that under

section 4, but it is not a subject that's engaged in

section 3. [1625] J. Kwan: W e l l , f i ne . I d i s ag re e wi t h t he m i ni s t e r. I disagree with him, and I'll ask him exactly the same question under

section 4 and then exactly the same question under

section 5. Those are the two relevant sections here. You know, it's a strange happening when you have a

section that relates to another in this House, and the minister refuses to answer questions in this House. It's a strange happening. Fine. We'll go with that, hon. Chair. I'll ask him exactly the same questions. In fact, I won't ask him. He already knows what I've asked him, so when we get to

section 4, I'll ask him to rise and give me the answers to my questions.

Section 3 as amended approved on the following division: [1630] YEAS — 48 Falcon Coell Hogg J. Reid Bruce van Dongen Barisoff Wilson Lee Thorpe Hagen Murray Clark Bond Nebbeling Stephens Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Nuraney Belsey Bell Chutter Trumper Johnston Bennett R. Stewart Hayer Bray Nijjar Bhullar Wong Suffredine MacKay Cobb K. Stewart Visser Brice Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr NAYS — 3 Nettleton MacPhail Kwan On

section 4. Hon. K. Falcon: I move the amendment to

section 4 standing in my name on the orders of the day. [SECTION 4, in the proposed

section 4 by deleting subsections (4) to (6) and substituting the following:

(4) If a proponent and an approval authority are able through the consultation process contemplated by this

section to reach agreement on how a measure that is perceived by the proponent to be a constraint on the designated project can be overcome in a manner that is consistent with the reasonable requirements of the approval authority, the parties must (

a) enter into an implementation agreement in which (

i) the measure that is perceived to be a constraint is identified, (ii) the measures that the parties have agreed are to replace the constraint are specified, (iii) the approval authority agrees to waive performance of the constraint identified in subparagraph (

i) if the proponent performs the replacement measures specified under subparagraph (ii), and (iv) the proponent agrees to perform the replacement measures specified under subparagraph (ii), and (

b) submit the implementation agreement to the responsible minister for approval.

(5) If an implementation agreement is submitted to the responsible minister under subsection (4) (b), the responsible minister may approve the agreement if the responsible minister has been authorized, under

section 3 (2) (b), to approve the replacement of the constraint identified in that agreement.

(6) If, after an implementation agreement is entered into under this

section in relation to a designated project, the implementation agreement is approved by the responsible minister under subsection (5) and if the replacement measures specified under subsection (4) (a) (ii) are complied with, the following apply to the project whether or not the project loses its designation as a provincially significant project after the implementation agreement is made: (

a) compliance with the replacement measures is deemed to be full compliance with the constraints they replace; (

b) the approval authority must treat the project as having fully complied with the replaced constraints and, without limitation, must (

i) issue or provide, or facilitate the issue or provision of, the permits, approvals and consents that would normally be issued or provided had the replaced constraints actually been complied with, and (ii) take, or cause to be taken, any actions that would normally be taken had the replaced constraints actually been complied with.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) (b), an approval authority referred to in that subsection must issue or provide, or facilitate the issue or provision of, the permits, approvals and consents referred to in subsection (6) (b) (i), and must take, or cause to be taken, the actions referred to in subsection (6) (b) (ii), in the manner, within the time and on the terms and conditions that (

a) are specified in the implementation agreement, or (

b) if not specified in the implementation agreement, would normally apply had the replaced constraints actually been complied with.] Amendment approved. On

section 4 as amended. J. Kwan: For the benefit of the members of the House, I will be canvassing a few questions with the minister on

section 4, and then we'll move on to

section

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8225 5, on which I have a few questions. I'll be calling divi- sion on

section 5. For those who need the exercise, they should go out and come back. For those who don't, they can stay and enjoy the debate. The Chair: Can the member please stick to

section 4. J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, my question to the minister he already knows for

section 4, which I stated under sec- tion 3. The Chair: It's on the amendment? J. Kwan: No. You already passed the amendment, I thought. Same questions that I tabled under

section 3…. [1635] Hon. K. Falcon:

Section 4 lays out the consultations required for the removal of constraints. The important thing I would point out to the member, which I think is very important, is that any proponent must — not may but must — consult with the approval authority — whether that's local, as in the case the member is men- tioning, or the provincial approval authority. It goes on to state that they must facilitate any reasonable re- quirement of the respective approval authorities, which I think is also very important.

The bill then allows that should there be a case where — even though the re- quirement to consult with the approval authority is in place and the approval authority has made reasonable requirements — there is an allegation that there is un- reasonableness taking place, then the minister may, in an additional step, appoint a facilitator to come in — under

section 8 but referred to here — to facilitate the conditions, to do some work in finding out what the fact base is, etc., and try and resolve the subject or whatever the perceived constraint may be. Then there is an option for the proponent and the approval authority to reach agreement on an alterna- tive process. They may decide to work together, iden- tify what the constraint is, come up with a mutually agreed-upon agreement on an alternative process which will allow the project to move forward while still meeting the needs of the approval authority.

That is something that can be jointly agreed upon, subject to the approval of the minister. I believe that sums it up. [K. Stewart in the chair.] J. Kwan: The question is if there is no agreement with the local authority…. That's the point here. The whole point here about this bill in its entirety is that it gives the government the ability to override and run roughshod over local government authority.

The min- ister can say: "Well, you know, they have to go and ask them to see what they think, and then there can be a facilitator and all those kinds of things, and then hope- fully they'll come to an agreement." The point is that if there is no agreement, does cabinet therefore have the power to override local government authorities, over- ride a local government's decision on its community consultation processes, override local government's decisions on their community plans? Isn't that correct? Hon. K. Falcon:

Section 4 is simply talking about the consultative process that has to take place. The member is actually referring to

section 5, I believe, in the heart of her question. The key thing under

section 4 is that we've put into place a process that

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1126pm-01
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1126pm 01
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	450e759b06b3099c89a6dc728ccd7cb7ec48be50

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).